Grand strategy

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  Grand strategy is the art of directing every instrument a nation possesses, military and nonmilitary alike, toward a single political end. Not just armies, not just diplomacy, but finance, industry, public morale, and the very structure of alliances. The question at the heart of grand strategy is deceptively simple: what does a nation want, and what will it spend to get it? Those questions have been answered very differently by Sparta and Athens, by Rome under Hadrian and Rome under Constantine, and by the United States across successive generations. The concept itself is surprisingly young as a named idea. It surfaced in France in the 19th century, gained momentum through the writings of British military historian B. H. Liddell Hart, and exploded into debate at the end of the Cold War, when the fall of the Soviet Union left the world's most powerful nation without a clear adversary to organize itself against. What came next, and what comes after that, is still being argued.

• 2. Defining the Idea

  ›

  B. H. Liddell Hart offered a definition that shaped almost everything that followed. In his words, the role of grand strategy is to coordinate and direct all the resources of a nation, or band of nations, toward the attainment of the political object of the war, the goal defined by fundamental policy. That framing did something important: it insisted grand strategy was not just a wartime concern. It looked beyond conflict to the peace that would follow, and it placed moral resources alongside military ones. Fostering a people's willing spirit, Hart argued, was often as important as possessing more concrete forms of power. Thinkers have since argued over where grand strategy ends and foreign policy begins. The usual distinction holds that foreign policy lists ambitions and wishes, whereas grand strategy sets priorities, weighs costs against benefits, and produces a practical plan. Barry Posen, a political scientist whose work appears throughout this debate, emphasized security as grand strategy's core purpose. Hart, by contrast, stressed peace. Both views remain alive in scholarship today, and the tension between them shapes the rival schools that have defined American strategic debate since the 1990s.

• 3. Roots in Antiquity

  ›

  Thucydides's account of the war between the Peloponnesian League, led by Sparta, and the Delian League, led by Athens, is among the earliest texts scholars turn to when tracing the history of strategic thought. The Greek word for strategy originally referred to the skills of a general. By the sixth century, the Byzantines had already cleaved the concept in two: strategy was the means by which a general defends the homeland and defeats the enemy, while tactics was the science of organizing armies. Byzantine Emperor Leo VI formalized that distinction in his work the Taktika. The term grand strategy itself emerged in France in the 19th century. Jacques Antoine Hippolyte, Comte de Guibert, wrote an influential work called General Essay on Tactics that distinguished between tactics and what he called grand tactics, a concept scholars today would recognize as grand strategy. Leo's Taktika was translated into French and German shortly after, and the division between tactics and strategy became standard across European military thought. Carl von Clausewitz then pushed the idea further, arguing that politics and war were intrinsically linked and defining strategy as the use of engagements for the object of the war. Antoine-Henri Jomini went further still, arguing that the political nature of war meant different types of conflict, offensive wars, defensive wars, wars of opinion, civil wars, had to be waged differently, which in turn created the need for a grand strategy that could span all of them.

• 4. Rome's Two Models

  ›

  From the era of Hadrian, Roman emperors adopted what historians have called preclusive security: a linear barrier of perimeter defense around the Empire, with legions stationed in great fortresses along the frontier. Hadrian's Wall is the most recognizable physical expression of that system. Because the perimeter was deemed impenetrable, the emperors kept no central reserve army. Rome's road network made this viable. Soldiers could move from one frontier to another in time to reinforce a siege, and supplies moved just as easily. As one historian wrote, the invaders simply did not think in terms of millions of bushels of wheat, and could therefore be outlasted even when they could not be defeated in open battle. Constantine dismantled that model. He moved the legions from the frontiers into cities, consolidating them into a roving army. The 5th century historian Zosimus described the consequences in stark terms: Constantine deprived of help the people who were harassed by the barbarians and burdened tranquil cities with the pest of the military, so that several straightway were deserted. Modern historians treat that verdict skeptically. B. H. Warmington argued Zosimus's charge was an oversimplification, and that the claim about frontier exposure was at best anachronistic and probably reflected Zosimus's prejudices against Constantine. The debate over Constantine's grand strategy illustrates a persistent problem in the field: consequences unfold over decades, and attributing them to a single decision is rarely straightforward.

• 5. World War II and the Cold War

  ›

  After the attack on Pearl Harbor drew the United States into the war in 1941, the Allies agreed to concentrate first on defeating Germany. The decision rested on a clear-eyed appraisal: Germany was the most powerful Axis member and directly threatened the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union. Japan's conquests attracted public attention, but planners judged them mostly in colonial areas deemed less essential. Theatre commanders in the Pacific accordingly received fewer resources, and Allied military strategy in that theater was shaped by that constraint. During the Cold War, the United States and the United Kingdom turned to containment as the organizing principle of grand strategy. The concept brought together military deterrence, alliance-building through NATO, and the integration of other nations into American-designed institutions such as the IMF, the World Bank, and what became the WTO. By the late 1960s and 1970s, scholarship on grand strategy experienced a resurgence. Bernard Brodie offered a compact definition that reflected the era: strategy as a guide to accomplishing something and doing it efficiently, a theory for action. The Cold War ended without a military confrontation between the superpowers, but it left a strategic vacuum that American policymakers and scholars spent the following decades trying to fill.

• 6. Four Schools After the Cold War

  ›

  In a 1997 article, Barry R. Posen and Andrew L. Ross mapped the strategic debate that followed the Soviet collapse into four schools: neo-isolationism, selective engagement, cooperative security, and primacy. Neo-isolationism held that nuclear deterrence was sufficient to protect the American homeland, and that the United States therefore had no obligation to intervene abroad. Its proponents, including Earl Ravenal and Patrick Buchanan, called for withdrawal from NATO and deep cuts to forward-deployed forces. Selective engagement agreed with realism's premise that power matters, but argued the United States should intervene only where stakes were genuinely high: Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, where great powers and oil supplies concentrated. Robert J. Art described it as steering the middle course between an isolationist, unilateralist course and a world-policeman role. Barry Posen placed himself in this camp, with the caveat that the United States should also resist any Eurasian hegemon capable of threatening American interests directly. Cooperative security drew on liberalism as well as realism, arguing that peace is effectively indivisible and that international institutions could, over time, reduce the security dilemma. Primacy argued the opposite: the United States should pursue outright military preponderance, prevent peer competitors from emerging, and use its dominant position to shape the international system. Its four pillars were military preponderance, reassurance and containment of allies, integration of states into American-designed institutions, and limits on nuclear proliferation. Posen and Ross identified five reasons the quest for primacy might prove futile, including the diffusion of economic and technological capabilities and the risk of imperial overstretch.

• 7. Primacy, Restraint, and the Ongoing Debate

  ›

  Posen later argued that those four schools had collapsed into two: liberal hegemony, a fusion of primacy and cooperative security, and restraint, a fusion of neo-isolationism and selective engagement. Liberal hegemony held that the United States should use its power advantage to build and enforce a liberal international order, combining overwhelming military force with permanent alliance commitments and support for free trade, individual rights, and the rule of law. Broad elite support for both the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the 2011 intervention in Libya, despite those conflicts being initiated by presidents of different parties, reflected the staying power of this consensus. Restraint called for a different reckoning. Posen described the United States as rich, distant from other great powers, and defended by a powerful nuclear deterrent, and argued those advantages were being squandered by what he called an undisciplined, expensive, and bloody strategy. It makes enemies almost as fast as it slays them, he wrote, discourages allies from paying for their own defense, and convinces powerful states to band together and oppose Washington's plans. John Ikenberry, Stephen Brooks, and William Wohlforth pushed back, arguing that advocates of restraint overstate the costs of deep engagement and understate the benefits, including reduced regional competition, an open world economy, and leverage in negotiations. Daniel Drezner, a professor of international politics at Tufts University, found the strongest empirical support for the argument that hegemonic eras correlate with lower trade barriers and greater globalization, but noted a catch: other countries free-ride off the hegemon, allowing them to grow faster, and technologies diffuse from the leading power to the rest of the world. A third option, offshore balancing, associated with political scientists Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, proposed that the United States should refrain from significant overseas involvement except to prevent any single state from establishing dominance in Europe, Northeast Asia, or the Persian Gulf, the three regions offshore balancers identify as strategically decisive.